JFK Assassination Forum
Off Topic => News - Off Topic - Weird & Wacky => Topic started by: Matt Grantham on August 11, 2019, 03:35:06 PM
-
Maybe this is being discussed more than I am seeing, but when I called into my formerly beloved Thom Hartmann's show last Friday he claimed it wasn't true and I must have gotten it from Fox. God I hate what has happened to the left
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/federal-judge-dismisses-dnc-suit-russia-trump-campaign/story?id=64664813
-
Maybe this is being discussed more than I am seeing, but when I called into my formerly beloved Thom Hartmann's show last Friday he claimed it wasn't true and I must have gotten it from Fox. God I hate what has happened to the left
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/federal-judge-dismisses-dnc-suit-russia-trump-campaign/story?id=64664813
U.S. District Judge John Koeltl in Manhattan said he could not hear the claims against Russia, which were the focus of the case, because of a legal doctrine called sovereign immunity that shields foreign governments from litigation in the United States.
-- Reuters
-
On Tuesday, Judge Koeltl ruled against the DNC, emphasizing that they did not allege that anyone other than the Russian government participated in the hacking of their systems, and failed to “raise a factual allegation that suggests that any of the defendants were even aware that the Russian Federation was planning to hack the DNC’s computers until after it had already done so.”
So it would not even matter if the case was thrown out, the point here is the DNC did not have Russian collusion/conspiracy as part of its case
Mueller report said the same thing
Is Rueters actually quoting Koelti?
-
On Tuesday, Judge Koeltl ruled against the DNC, emphasizing that they did not allege that anyone other than the Russian government participated in the hacking of their systems, and failed to “raise a factual allegation that suggests that any of the defendants were even aware that the Russian Federation was planning to hack the DNC’s computers until after it had already done so.”
Mueller report said the same thing
Is Rueters actually quoting Koelti?
Why would the DNC allege that anyone else participated in the actual hacking when it was done exclusively by Russia's GRU?
-
Why would the DNC allege that anyone else participated in the actual hacking when it was done exclusively by Russia's GRU?
So your point is the Trump administration did not conspire to hack?
-
So your point is the Trump administration did not conspire to hack?
Did the suit allege that someone in the Trump Campaign conspired with the GRU to do the actual hacking of the DNC, or, as stated in a Politico article, "... that the Trump [C]ampaign, campaign aides and Trump allies abetted the theft of the emails by encouraging WikiLeaks to publish the messages and by urging they be released when they would be of maximum political benefit to then-candidate Donald Trump"?
If so, DNC had a weak case to begin with.
Here's that Reuters article I quoted from:
https://mobile-reuters-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1UP2OI?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2Fus-usa-trump-democrats-idUSKCN1UP2OI
-
Did the suit allege that someone in the Trump Campaign conspired with the GRU to do the actual hacking of the DNC, or, as stated in a Politico article, "... that the Trump [C]ampaign, campaign aides and Trump allies abetted the theft of the emails by encouraging WikiLeaks to publish the messages and by urging they be released when they would be of maximum political benefit to then-candidate Donald Trump"?
So one point at a time if you will please. The question is whether Trump or his administration in any way colluded or conspired in advance with the Russians to hack the DNC? Adam Schiff is on record as saying he had absolute proof that they did
-
So one point at a time if you will please. The question is whether Trump or his administration in any way colluded or conspired in advance with the Russians to hack the DNC? Adam Schiff is on record as saying he had absolute proof that they did
You keep saying "Administration".
Shouldn't you be saying "Campaign," instead?
If Politico framed it correctly, then it seems to me that Trump's saying during a debate (or whatever), "Russia, if you're listening..." would qualify, as would Roger Stone's yet-to-be-fully-uncovered shenanigans, and Paul Manafort's dealings with GRU officer Konstantin Kilimnik.
https://beta-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-manaforts-2016-meeting-with-a-russian-employee-at-new-york-cigar-club-goes-to-the-heart-of-muellers-probe/2019/02/12/655f84dc-2d67-11e9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s
-
You keep saying "Administration".
Shouldn't you be saying "Campaign," instead?
If Politico framed it correctly, then it seems to me that Trump's saying during a debate (or whatever), "Russia, if you're listening..." would qualify, as would Roger Stone's yet-to-be-fully-uncovered shenanigans, and Paul Manafort's dealings with GRU officer Konstantin Kilimnik.
https://beta-washingtonpost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-manaforts-2016-meeting-with-a-russian-employee-at-new-york-cigar-club-goes-to-the-heart-of-muellers-probe/2019/02/12/655f84dc-2d67-11e9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s
The hack began before Trumps supposed directive, not to mention HRC servers had already been confiscated. The yet to be stories should be falling on deaf ears. Are you claiming the Trump administration, including Stone, knew Wikileaks had received the emails from Russia? Or any information that links Wikileaks with receiving the emails from Russia?
-
The hack began before Trumps supposed directive, not to mention HRC servers had already been confiscated. The yet to be stories should be falling on deaf ears. Are you claiming thie Trump administration, including Stone, knew Wikileaks had received the emails from Russia? Or any information that links Wikileaks with receiving the emails from Russia?
Regarding Stone, I guess we'll have wait until November to start finding out for sure, won't we.
Regarding whether or not Wikileaks received the hacked emails from Russia, can you think of a more likely source?
You realize, don't you, that William Binney, upon learning about the shenanigans of Tim Leonard aka "Adam Carter" in Darlington, England, retracted his accusation that the hack was an "inside job"?
Once again -- "Administration," or "Campaign"? There is a difference, you know.
Regardless, what did the Mueller Report have to say about Wikileaks' relationship, if any, with DCLeaks and/or Guccifer 2.0?
Didn't Mueller indict, or have indicted, 17 or so GRU officers, claiming that they'd done the hacking?
Now for a personal quetion:
Do you believe Robert Mueller is part of "The Deep State"?
If so, is that what drew you to this forum? The (well-founded) hope that you might "rub elbows" with kindred flaming spirits here?
(If so, then there's no sense in my trying to enlighten you, because in my book ... you're a goner.)
-
Regarding Stone, I guess we'll have wait until November to start finding out for sure, won't we.
It is interesting that in Mueller's indictment there is no indication that the charges against Stone indicate he knew the Wikileaks documents came from the Russians. We have no rumor, link, allusion or any information that such a thing happened. It is not even clear in the indictment that such a thing would be necessary for Stone to be found guilty.
-
It is interesting that in Mueller's indictment there is no indication the charges against Stone include the idea that he knew the Wikileaks documents came from the Russians. We have no rumor, link, allusion or any information that such a thing happened. It is not even clear in the indictment that such a thing would be necessary for Stone to be found guilty.
Has anyone seen the fully un-redacted version of the Mueller Report, yet?
Was Stone in communication, either directly or via a "cut out," with Guccifer 2.0 or DCLeaks?
For Stone "to be found guilty" of what?
Regardless, do you disagree with anything in this November 28, 2018 article? --
https://www.justsecurity.org/45435/timeline-roger-stone-russias-guccifer-2-0-wikileaks/
-
Was Stone in communication, either directly or via a "cut out," with Guccifer 2.0 or DCLeaks?
For Stone "to be found guilty" of what?
Regardless, do you disagree with anything in this November 28, 2018 article? --
Firstly, Stone may be guilty of things, my singular focus is whether he knew the Russians were responsible for the Wikileaks DNC/Podesta emails
Your article states
Stone’s confidant told the Washington Post that Stone said he learned from Assange that Wikileaks had obtained emails that would torment senior Democrats such as John Podesta. The conversation occurred before any public reports that hackers had obtained emails of the Democratic National Committee, let alone Podesta.
So I am not sure if you are suggesting that sometime later he becomes aware the Russians are involved?
I am not even sure why I need to answer whether I believe Stone was in contact with cut outs working with Guicifer or not I don't, but isn't it up to you to show something that gives creedence to the claims? Yes the fact he lied about being in contact with Russians gives the loosest kind of suspicion, but if that is as good as it gets it aint much
Same type of answer in regard to what Mueller is charging him with. You tell me what in those charges insinuates he knew the Russians were responsible for the Wiki emails?
-
Firstly, Stone may be guilty of things, my singular focus is whether he knew the Russians were responsible for the Wikileaks DNC/Podesta emails
Your article states
Stone’s confidant told the Washington Post that Stone said he learned from Assange that Wikileaks had obtained emails that would torment senior Democrats such as John Podesta. The conversation occurred before any public reports that hackers had obtained emails of the Democratic National Committee, let alone Podesta.
So I am not sure if you are suggesting that sometime later he becomes aware the Russians are involved?
I am not even sure why I need to answer whether I believe Stone was in contact with cut outs working with Guicifer or not. I don't, but isn't it up to you to show something that gives credence to the claims? Yes, the fact he lied about being in contact with Russians gives the loosest kind of suspicion, but if that is as good as it gets it ain't much
Same type of answer in regard to what Mueller is charging him with. You tell me what in those charges insinuates he knew the Russians were responsible for the Wiki emails?
Whether or not Roger Stone was in contact with people communicating with Guccifer 2.0 about the distribution of the hacked emails will hopefully be resolved in Stone's upcoming trial.
-- MWT ;)
Question: Do you agree with Mueller's finding that the Russians were, in so many words, engaged in systematic and pervasive long-term efforts to not only see Clinton defeated, but your boy Trump elected?
-
Whether or not Roger Stone was in contact with people communicating with Guccifer 2.0 about the distribution of the hacked emails will hopefully be resolved in Stone's upcoming trial.
-- MWT ;)
Question: Do you agree with Mueller's finding that the Russians were, in so many words, engaged in systematic and pervasive long-term efforts to not only see Clinton defeated, but your boy Trump elected?
Since there is no indication that that Muller made in effort to check or corroborate Crowd Strikes finding, nor did he apparently even consider the Veteran Intelligence Professionals and William Binney's findings, I have little confidence in the Guicifer 2.0 finding. The Facebook story has no connection to Russian intelligence from what I have seen is a few tens of thousands of dollars worth of effort. It is a world wide web by the way. I have never voted fro Republican in my life and certainly did not vote for Trump. So I do not consider him my boy
-
Since there is no indication that that Muller made in effort to check or corroborate Crowd Strikes finding, nor did he apparently even consider the Veteran Intelligence Professionals and William Binney's findings, I have little confidence in the Guicifer 2.0 finding.
Maybe you can enlighten yourself a little by reading this article:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180802/07182740351/as-dnc-hacked-itself-conspiracy-theory-collapses-key-backer-claim-exposed-as-uk-troll.shtml
-- MWT ;)
-
Maybe you can enlighten yourself a little by reading this article:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180802/07182740351/as-dnc-hacked-itself-conspiracy-theory-collapses-key-backer-claim-exposed-as-uk-troll.shtml
-- MWT ;)
I am trying to look for the meat of this articles rebuttal of the VIPS. This seems to be about it
The Nation was forced to review the report, adding a meandering preamble to address criticism. In the year since, reports have forged a new infosec community consensus that yes, Guccifer 2.0 was GRU, and had been amusingly caught because Russian intelligence forgot to activate its VPN before logging into the bogus persona's WordPress site on one occasion (one of several opsec errors made by Russian intel).
I don't see much meat there quite frankly If you want to point to something else in the article I will listen. Not sure who the infosec community is. We do know that the supposed consensus on the Russian hack was not a consensus opinion of all 17 intelligence agencies as Clapper made quite clear. At a minimum lets have an open forum of VIPS, and Kapersky and others who doubt the alphabet agencies and their hired helpers.
-
In my opinion to refute VIPS in a straightforward manner one would need to do one of two things. Show that download speeds have no relation to the question of the distance of the hack. Or that VIPS measurement of the download speeds were incorrect or unreliable. I am not seeing that in your article.
-
We do know that the supposed consensus on the Russian hack was not a consensus opinion of all 17 intelligence agencies as Clapper made quite clear.
At a minimum lets have an open forum of VIPS, and Kapersky and others who doubt the alphabet agencies and their hired helpers.
Which of the 17 intelligence agencies dissented from the majority's conclusion?
Isn't Kapersky Lab owned by a Russian and headquartered in Moscow?
-
Which of the 17 intelligence agencies dissented from the majority's conclusion?
It is not a matter of them dissenting but rather that they never assented.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-rather-large-new-york-times-correction
-
In my opinion to refute VIPS in a straightforward manner one would need to do one of two things. Show that download speeds have no relation to the question of the distance of the hack. Or that VIPS measurement of the download speeds were incorrect or unreliable. I am not seeing that in your article.
Two honest personal questions:
1) A you a "computer person"?
2) Have you done any research on the technical aspect of the issue?
-
It is not a matter of their dissenting, but rather that they never assented.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-rather-large-new-york-times-correction
The Washington Examiner, huh?
"Right Bias and Mixed Factual Reporting," according to mediabiasfactcheck. com
https://mediabiasfactcheck-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15656685090414&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fmediabiasfactcheck.com%2Fwashington-examiner%2F
If you're attracted to "news sources" like Washington Examiner, I'm guessing you believe we live in a "Deep State".
Am I correct?
-
"17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid."
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
-- MWT ;)
-
"17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid."
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
-- MWT ;)
Lets keep in mind the mainstream has been aware that it is not 17 but still repeatedly make the claim anyway. I have called some of our local hacks in the SF Bay Area and the just can't bring themselves to face the facts on this . It says something about the confirmation bias
Alsop their opinions did not work out too well on Iraq WMD's, so I will stick with GWB's rousing invective on being fooled again on this issue
-
Lets keep in mind the mainstream has been aware that it is not 17 but still repeatedly make the claim anyway. I have called some of our local hacks in the SF Bay Area and the just can't bring themselves to face the facts on this . It says something about the confirmation bias
Alsop their opinions did not work out too well on Iraq WMD's, so I will stick with GWB's rousing invective on being fooled again on this issue
It sounds to me as though even if Clapper and Clinton had said, "Well, four of our seventeen intelligence agencies believe the Russians hacked the DNC's and Podesta's emails, and the other thirteen either agree or have no opinion because the issue's out of their area of expertise," you still would have disbelieved the findings because ... gasp ... the FBI didn't take possession of the DNC's servers, and ... and ... and ... regardless, those four agencies always lie in order to advance the interests of the evil, evil, evil Deep State!
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
It sounds to me as though even if Clapper and Clinton had said, "Well, four of our seventeen intelligence agencies believe the Russians hacked the DNC's and Podesta's emails, and the other thirteen either agree or have no opinion because the issue's out of their area of expertise," you still would have disbelieved the findings because ... gasp ... the FBI didn't take possession of the DNC's servers, and ... and ... and ... regardless, those four agencies always lie in order to advance the interests of the evil, evil, evil Deep State!
LOL
-- MWT ;)
So when you say take possession of the DNC servers you mean investigate who hacked them? I understand it would be preferable to have a Clinton funded private company to get the result you want. If more than 3 intelligence agencies agreed then they would have been counted as agreeing. You are slipping away from a rational discussion and into the land of innuendo, memes etc. Enjoy the trip
-
So when you say take possession of the DNC servers you mean investigate who hacked them? I understand it would be preferable to have a Clinton funded private company to get the result you want. If more than 3 intelligence agencies agreed they would have been counted as agreeing. You are slipping away from a rational discussion and into the land of innuendo, memes etc. Enjoy the trip
Well, what if anything would have convinced you that the Russians were behind the hacks?
Nothing, because your mind was already made up by the likes of William Binney, Julian Assange, and that Greenwald guy?
PS Wasn't it you who mentioned the servers earlier?
PPS Are you a "computer guy"?
PPPS Please translate into normal English for us your sentence, "If more than 3 intelligence agencies agreed they would have counted as agreeing."
Didn't the CIA, FBI and NSA come to independent conclusions that the Russians had done the hacking?
Or do you fervently believe that they conspired to arrive at that "wholy unsubstantiated conclusion"?
In other words, do you believe we live in an evil, evil, evil Deep State?
-
Two words, Demonstrable Evidence
-
what, specifically, wo
Two words, Demonstrable Evidence
Dear (putative?) computer guy,
1) Please give me some examples of what you would consider to be GRU-incriminating "demonstrable evidence" in this case.
2) What, specifically, would be required to convince you that the GRU hacked the DNC's emails?
3) How would you know whether of not some computer-based evidence was "demonstrable" or "compelling" here?
4) How do you know "demonstrable evidence" hasn't already been uncovered and published?
5) What in this article, and to the articles it links to, do you disagree with, or maybe it's impossible for you to answer that question because ... you're not "a computer guy"?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/13/17568660/russia-dnc-hack-indictments-gru-mueller-guccifer-dcleaks
6) Do you believe DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 were fronts for GRU agents?
If not, why not?
-
4) How do you know "demonstrable evidence" hasn't already been uncovered and published?
If there is, I just know you, and all the sources I have ever listened to, have not presented it.
-
If there is, I just know you, and all the sources I have ever listened to, have not presented it. [emphasis added]
Listened to?
Uh-oh.
Listened to on the radio?
On TV?
On youtube?
At the local pub?
At the barber shop?
-
Are you suggesting a source exists with the demonstrable evidence is out there?
-
4) How do you know "demonstrable evidence" [of the GRU's hack and distribution of the emails] hasn't already been uncovered and published?
Are you suggesting a source exists with the demonstrable evidence is out there?
Matt,
Do you expect me to do your "research" for you?
And, once again, exactly what kind of "demonstrable" evidence do you require (and would reasonably expect to find, for that matter), given the fact that you are, apparently, not even aware that William Binney walked-back, about a year ago, his original assertions
... etc, etc, etc?
-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy ;)